On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment

Genus, Audley; Coles, Anne‐Marie

doi:10.1080/09537320500357251

Cited by 67 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Initially, TA played a prominent role in policy by forecasting and assessing the societal impact of genetic engineering. Later, it also initiated and orchestrated public debates to elicit larger public participation in technological decision/policy-making, and to improve learning about new technologies and their societal concerns (Genus and Coles, 2005). As such, TA can be considered as a way of institutionalizing societal concerns (topdown), which previously spontaneously generated from the concerned communities (bottom-up).…”

Section: Societal Involvement: New Debates New Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to various researchers, public and market confidence may be restored by clarifying and accommodating different values and ideals held in decision-making, enhancing public accountability, democratizing expertise, and by creating a shared responsibility for decision-making (Healy, 1999;Levidow and Marris, 2001;Wynne, 2001;Jensen and Sandøe, 2002;Mayer and Stirling, 2002;Jasanoff, 2003;Jensen et al, 2003;Frewer et al, 2004;Wandall, 2004;Deblonde and du Jardin, 2005;Genus and Coles, 2005;Winickoff et al, 2005;Irwin, 2006;Jensen, 2006;Power and McCarty, 2006). Although gaining trust may be harder than losing it, in the regulatory process of decision-making about GM agro-food products, this objective can be achieved by (1) making scientific risk assessments more transparent by denoting explicitly the factual and normative premises on which they are based, (2) allowing the contribution of diverse publics through the organization of participatory exercises, and by (3) implementing an integral sustainability evaluation that integrates societal concerns.…”

Section: Restoring Public and Market Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Devos

Maeseele

Reheul

et al. 2007

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Via a historical reconstruction, this paper primarily demonstrates how the societal debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) gradually extended in terms of actors involved and concerns reflected. It is argued that the implementation of recombinant DNA technology out of the laboratory and into civil society entailed a ''complex of concerns.'' In this complex, distinctions between environmental, agricultural, socio-economic, and ethical issues proved to be blurred. This fueled the confusion between the wider debate on genetic modification and the risk assessment of transgenic crops in the European Union. In this paper, the lasting skeptical and/or ambivalent attitude of Europeans towards agro-food biotechnology is interpreted as signaling an ongoing social request -and even a quest -for an evaluation of biotechnology with Sense and Sensibility. In this (re)quest, a broader-than-scientific dimension is sought for that allows addressing the GMO debate in a more ''sensible'' way, whilst making ''sense'' of the different stances taken in it. Here, the restyling of the European regulatory frame on transgenic agro-food products and of science communication models are discussed and taken to be indicative of the (re)quest to move from a merely scientific evaluation and risk-based policy towards a socially more robust evaluation that takes the ''non-scientific'' concerns at stake in the GMO debate seriously.

show abstract

Section: Societal Involvement: New Debates New Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Restoring Public and Market Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Devos

Maeseele

Reheul

et al. 2007

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, one of the key issues that has been highlighted in relation to the 'politics of design' approach is the difficulty of creating technology that meets the needs of the target group when operating within existing, consolidated power structures (Pols and Spahn 2014). In their review of the literature on CTA, Genus and Coles (2005) highlight that there are often large differences in participants' ability to express themselves, and that power differences -or the ability to influence a technological development -can take many shapes. VSD has been criticised for a lack of regulation when one has to deal with competing values that cannot be reconciled or intractable disagreements (Manders-Huits 2011).…”

Section: Family Resemblances: Insights From Related Research Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to responsible innovation

Hoop

Pols

Romijn

2016

Journal of Responsible Innovation

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for 'greenwashing'. To examine RI's limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities, strategic behaviour and, lastly, different, diverging and even contradictory interests. We demonstrate that such factors may obstruct the possibility to innovate in a responsible way, leading us to our core observation that RI should be about innovating responsibly -or not innovating at all. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…Participatory design methods can be used to help strike an appropriate balance. See for instance: [76,77]. Prior empirical research on balancing user and public interests in H-IoT is also available.…”

Section: Give Users Control Over Data Collection and Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognising these risks, an appropriate balance must be struck between user control to protect her privacy and autonomy, and benefits to user safety and public interests via default settings and externally controlled collection and transmission settings. Participatory design methods can be used to help strike an appropriate balance [76,77]. Prior empirical research on balancing user and public interests in H-IoT is also available as guidance [55,78,79].…”

Section: Iteratively Adhere To Public Research and Industry Confidementioning

confidence: 99%

Designing the Health-related Internet of Things: Ethical Principles and Guidelines

Mittelstadt

2017

Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The conjunction of wireless computing, ubiquitous Internet access, and the miniaturisation of sensors have opened the door for technological applications that can monitor health and well-being outside of formal healthcare systems. The health-related Internet of Things (H-IoT) increasingly plays a key role in health management by providing real-time tele-monitoring of patients, testing of treatments, actuation of medical devices, and fitness and well-being monitoring. Given its numerous applications and proposed benefits, adoption by medical and social care institutions and consumers may be rapid. However, a host of ethical concerns are also raised that must be addressed. The inherent sensitivity of health-related data being generated and latent risks of Internet-enabled devices pose serious challenges. Users, already in a vulnerable position as patients, face a seemingly impossible task to retain control over their data due to the scale, scope and complexity of systems that create, aggregate, and analyse personal health data. In response, the H-IoT must be designed to be technologically robust and scientifically reliable, while also remaining ethically responsible, trustworthy, and respectful of user rights and interests. To assist developers of the H-IoT, this paper describes nine principles and nine guidelines for ethical design of H-IoT devices and data protocols.

show abstract

On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment

Cited by 67 publications

References 13 publications

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Limits to responsible innovation

Designing the Health-related Internet of Things: Ethical Principles and Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About